[aurele]

Here's a scan of an 8x10 print that I made in the bathroom one night. I exposed the paper twice with two different filters using Dave Butcher's technique. It involves using different filters to maximize contrast in highlights and shadows at different times. Then I scanned it and healed the dust in PS and bumped a few sliders to make it look more like the analog print.
Split Grade Printing the Ilford Way | Darkroom Dave

Canon A-1 FD 75-200/4.5, Ilford HP5 400, D76 1+1, Omega B-22, Ilford multigrade paper. Epson V600.

This is a very nice technique ! You're on the way of mastering the darkroom.

[_Ben]

This is the old sugar plant in my home town. There are these sugar plants stretching along the front range. Most are now abandoned as they beets are processed somewhere else. This old plant is still going though. I'll need to get a shot of the actual buildings soon.

I used some front tilt to focus on just the train cars and buildings.

Taken with a Zone VI 4x5 and Kodak Ektar 203mm F7.7 lens. Shot on Foma 200 film rated at 120 and developed in Pyrocat MC for 8.5 minutes.

Ya! Trains! I would love to own a large format camera one day.

---------- Post added 05-21-15 at 12:31 PM ----------

This is a very nice technique ! You're on the way of mastering the darkroom.

Thanks. It's a lot of fun too. More appealing to me than sitting in front of the computer all the time. The tangible aspect of the equipment and chemistry just feels more comfortable to me. Like a scientific endeavor with a creative outcome.

[rob1234]

No, YOU don't understand the simple fact you can't judge the sharpness of a lens from a post processed image. Or any other optical qualities for the simple reason you are adding other parameters that modify (enhances?) the quality of the glass.

For the process of going from negative to digital, as said before IMO it should be as transparent as possible especially if you want to appreciate the other factors: light, lens, exposure (from the camera), film. From an engineering perspective if we have to define what is called "transfer faction" its value should be as equal to 1 as possible, it's the same principle of the calibration of the sensors used on a telemetry, you add digital things to the signal, but you want them less invasive as possible.

However talking about the M50 mm f1.4 if we want to judge its sharpness in the centre, bokeh and contrast wide open these UNprocessed pictures don't lie:

If we want to judge its behaviour stepped down to get as much DOF as possible perhaps this picture (Coltonpicture?) might be of help:

Cuthbert, this is the last I'll post on it becasue it's getting boring. I also like your photograpahy, and understand your intent about showing the true qualities of equipment and film. In no way is this meant to be personal, but unlike audio, all digital images have an element of sharpening and colour interpretation. Just because this was done in an automated fashion, by a minicab scanner (or such like), you cannot deny that it happens!

Now I know sharpening ("post-processing") etc can be over-done, but that is predominantly a matter of taste... I would understand your argument a lot more if you were trying to compare scanned and printed photos against optically produced prints - but you're not: all the images on this thread are digital, and therefore have been interpreted by some sort of 'ADC'.

Anyway, no hard feelings!

Here's another piece of 6x7 Pro 400H:



67ii
105/2.4
1/1000th wide-open
Fuji Pro 400H
Epson 4870 scan

[Cuthbert]

4). Because scanners do have a mind of their own I.e. their default programming that presumably a group of real engineers and probably a few photographers somewhere in Japan came up with so that the pimply faced teenager that gets to run the scanner in some backwater drug store can load in film and get acceptable enough results for the masses wanting a set of 24-36 $0.13ea 4x6 digital color prints from their vacation.
...

Ok understood, I'm not a real engineer and not even a photographer...perhaps it's time to leave this board. I'm sorry to do that because here I met a lot of interesting people but now this story is getting too personal for my taste.

Cuthbert, this is the last I'll post on it becasue it's getting boring. I also like your photograpahy, and understand your intent about showing the true qualities of equipment and film. In no way is this meant to be personal, but unlike audio, all digital images have an element of sharpening and colour interpretation. Just because this was done in an automated fashion, by a minicab scanner (or such like), you cannot deny that it happens!

Now I know sharpening ("post-processing") etc can be over-done, but that is predominantly a matter of taste... I would understand your argument a lot more if you were trying to compare scanned and printed photos against optically produced prints - but you're not: all the images on this thread are digital, and therefore have been interpreted by some sort of 'ADC'.

Anyway, no hard feelings!

Here's another piece of 6x7 Pro 400H:


img01 by Rob O, on Flickr
67ii
105/2.4
1/1000th wide-open
Fuji Pro 400H
Epson 4870 scan

No hard feelings on my side as well and I also like your work, perhaps we'll meet on another place.

[Swift1]

Contax G2
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 35/2
Kodak Portra 400
Epson V500

[Jacquot]

Contax G2
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 35/2
Kodak Portra 400
Epson V500

Very interesting photograph with the symmetry and asymmetry. I like it. The two sides are pretty amazing juxtaposed like that. Great geometry and the jagged things make for a subtle humor. Nice image. I like to color, too.

[cooltouch]

An interesting perspective on The Wall, Colton. I like it. It seems to stretch on forever, which is pretty much what the Vietnam War felt like during the late 1960s and 1970s.

[arnold]

67ii
105/2.4
1/1000th wide-open
Fuji Pro 400H
Epson 4870 scan

I am curious as to why you so often use wide open lenses and narrow focus fields. In particular, regarding this picture, how does wide open benefit it? As I said, just curious.

[LesDMess]

Ok understood, I'm not a real engineer and not even a photographer...perhaps it's time to leave this board. I'm sorry to do that because here I met a lot of interesting people but now this story is getting too personal for my taste.

No hard feelings on my side as well and I also like your work, perhaps we'll meet on another place.

No doubt passions run high when we put our art out there for all to see and evaluate. By art I mean the whole process. Then you compound it by every individuals setups, personalities and other unaccountable nuances for evaluating said art and it is amazing when it all goes as planned and not so much when it doesn't.

I enjoy your contributions so I hope to see more of it.

[pentaxpete]

Here are a few from Poland in April 2015 on a 4 day trip -- took three Pentax bodies loaded with different films all 'outdated' as even my 'fresh bought' is outdated !
Polish Legs --- MZ-5 + 2008 dated Kodak Colorplus 200 rated 125 ASA and fill-in flash used -- 35-80mm f4-5.6 SMC Pentax-F, scan from print

Salt Mine : 1975 KX + 35-80mm f4-5.6 SMC Pentax-F lens, outdated Fuji Velvia 100 flash from Sunpak auto 36FD

[Swift1]

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon MC 50/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

[rob1234]

I am curious as to why you so often use wide open lenses and narrow focus fields. In particular, regarding this picture, how does wide open benefit it? As I said, just curious.

It's a fair question!

The main reason I shoot 6x7 is for the "look"/DoF, and this comes mainly (I think) from shooting at wide-apertures, especially with that fantastic old Takumar 105...

If I stopped down, I think that I could get the same technical image quality, and have far more post-processing options if I shoot with my K-5 or NEX-5N (same sensor).


Another wide-open snap!



67ii
105/2.4
1/1000th @ f2.4
Fuji Pro 400H
Epson 4870 scan

[desertscape]

Southern Arizona Spring w/ Brittlebush, Ocotillo, Saguaros etc. Pentax 67, 55-100 zoom, Velvia 50, slide cut to 645 vertical.

[_Ben]

Zenza Bronica ETRSi
Zenzanon MC 50/2.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V500

Tell me you framed up the cowboy on purpose

---------- Post added 05-22-15 at 07:26 PM ----------

It's a fair question!

The main reason I shoot 6x7 is for the "look"/DoF, and this comes mainly (I think) from shooting at wide-apertures, especially with that fantastic old Takumar 105...

If I stopped down, I think that I could get the same technical image quality, and have far more post-processing options if I shoot with my K-5 or NEX-5N (same sensor).


Another wide-open snap!



67ii
105/2.4
1/1000th @ f2.4
Fuji Pro 400H
Epson 4870 scan

That almost looks like a miniature. Like you tilted a view camera. Awesome!

[UgurUgurlu]

Canon Eos 300
Fuji Superia 200


Canon Eos 300
Kodak Portra 160